Awka Diocese Crisis Deepens as Chancellor Demands ₦5bn from Bishop Ezeofor

The crisis within the Awka Diocese of the Anglican Communion has escalated, with the diocesan Chancellor, B. E. Nwofor (SAN), demanding ₦5 billion in damages from the Bishop of Aguata Diocese, Rt. Rev. Samuel Ezeofor, over his alleged removal from office.

The dispute follows the suspension of Archbishop Alexander Ibezim by the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, Most Rev. Henry Ndukuba, who directed him to proceed on six months’ leave to allow an investigation into allegations against him. The Primate subsequently appointed Ezeofor as administrator of the Awka Diocese.

However, the Awka Diocesan Board, headed by Nwofor, rejected the appointment, arguing that the diocese’s governing provisions did not recognise the office of a supervising bishop. The board urged Ezeofor to focus on his responsibilities as Bishop of Aguata Diocese rather than assume supervisory authority over Awka.

In response, Ezeofor announced Nwofor’s immediate removal as Chancellor of the Awka Diocese. Nwofor has challenged the decision, demanding that Ezeofor withdraw the letter, issue a public apology and pay ₦5 billion in damages over what he described as a libellous publication.

In a letter titled “Removal as the Chancellor of the Diocese of Awka (Anglican Communion),” the senior advocate issued specific deadlines for compliance, warning that failure to meet his demands would lead to legal action.

Nwofor demanded the withdrawal of the letter within one day of its delivery, a written public apology within two days, and payment of ₦5 billion within seven days. He also requested that the apology receive the same level of publicity across print, electronic and online media as the disputed publication.

“Take notice that if you fail, refuse or neglect to comply with these demands, I will institute an action in court against Your Lordship to obtain redress. Your Lordship is not above the law,” Nwofor wrote.

The chancellor maintained that the position of supervising bishop was neither recognised nor provided for under the Diocese of Awka’s Constitution and Regulations, 2023. He said the document contained provisions for administering the diocese during the bishop’s absence and was approved by the Church of Nigeria Standing Committee on September 14, 2023.

Nwofor also disclosed that Ezeofor’s appointment as administrator was being challenged before the Anambra State High Court in Suit No. A/371/2026. He cited a pending motion, No. A/1795m/2026, seeking to set aside the appointment letter.

The senior advocate alleged that the statements in Ezeofor’s letter had harmed his reputation and exposed him to public ridicule. He argued that the circumstances permitted under the diocese’s governing rules for a member of its legal team to cease holding office did not apply to him.

According to Nwofor, those circumstances include death, resignation, loss of the office through which the person was appointed, bankruptcy, a declaration of insanity by a competent authority, or conviction for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or another offence specified under Canon XV of the Canons of the Church of Nigeria.

He therefore insisted that his tenure remained valid, stating, “My tenure of office is still subsisting and I remain the incumbent Chancellor of the Diocese of Awka (Anglican Communion).”

Nwofor further argued that the diocese’s governing provisions empowered Archbishop Ibezim and the chancellor to make arrangements for the administration of the diocese during the archbishop’s absence. He maintained that an administrator appointed under those provisions would exercise the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop.

He added that even if a bishop died or resigned, an administrator would retain authority until the Primate issued an order governing the administration of the diocese during the vacancy. Nwofor argued that neither death nor resignation had occurred in Ibezim’s case to justify such an order.

The dispute has now raised questions over the authority of the Primate to appoint an administrator, the interpretation of the diocese’s constitution and regulations, and the validity of the chancellor’s removal. The legal proceedings cited by Nwofor may prove significant in determining the competing claims.